Daily Mail is a dubious source for any purpose. (For example, I didn't trust its splicing together of segments of direct quotes.)
What the slug does with the glue is presented here as an objective fact, but afaics the sources don't even agree on this point. Some say it sticks the predator's jaws together, another says it sticks the slug to the surface it's on. That sort of thing shouldn't be an outstanding issue when an article is submitted for review (if something is uncertain, it shouldn't be reported); similarly other verification difficulties on that paragraph.
Large direct-quote paragraphs shouldn't copy the non-quoted scaffolding of the quote from the source; that had to be fixed a couple of times here. Also ought not outstand at submission.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Daily Mail is a dubious source for any purpose. (For example, I didn't trust its splicing together of segments of direct quotes.)
What the slug does with the glue is presented here as an objective fact, but afaics the sources don't even agree on this point. Some say it sticks the predator's jaws together, another says it sticks the slug to the surface it's on. That sort of thing shouldn't be an outstanding issue when an article is submitted for review (if something is uncertain, it shouldn't be reported); similarly other verification difficulties on that paragraph.
Large direct-quote paragraphs shouldn't copy the non-quoted scaffolding of the quote from the source; that had to be fixed a couple of times here. Also ought not outstand at submission.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
